Natalya wrote:If I have 6 minifigs with bastard guns and they combine fire on an armoured target and these guns do +1 and they all hit, is that 6 damage, or does it get ignored like the dice?

I've been playing that the +'s are separate from the actual dice when considering what armor removes. This has meant that in medieval games I play, three or four lucky spearmen can pick on an enemy armored knight. A good last resort, though not always cost effective.

Zupponn wrote:Maybe Armor should add a die to defense instead of taking one away from offense?

THIS. It's basically the same effect but doesn't feel as shitty and OP as just ignoring damage. I would not accept the new armor rules just because of the psychological effect of basically ignoring damage, not even giving it a chance.

Zupponn wrote:Maybe Armor should add a die to defense instead of taking one away from offense?

We already have the Structure Level rules for that. That would just make Armor into an extra set of rules for doing the same thing we already have rules for, not unique enough to justify their existence.

Colette wrote:THIS. It's basically the same effect but doesn't feel as shitty and OP as just ignoring damage. I would not accept the new armor rules just because of the psychological effect of basically ignoring damage, not even giving it a chance.

That's your option; I'm already pretty clear about your opinion without you just repeating yourself a hundred times. I'm not forcing you to agree with everyone else that Armor is awesome.

Medieval foot soldiers probably felt the same way about armored knights that you do, but I bet the kings still thought they were pretty cool.

I really like the armor rules. You can't just overcome it with numbers, you need to bring something heavier then simple infantry weapons to take them down. Which adds rock, paper, scissor esque gameplay. It makes armored knights the dreaded melee tanks they are and makes space marines actually terrifying when they walk unscathed through a laser volley. It also gives the you the possibility to make tanks feel more tank like. It doesn't matter how many machineguns you fire at a tank, it just won't pierce it's armor.

Zupponn wrote:Maybe Armor should add a die to defense instead of taking one away from offense?

We already have the Structure Level rules for that. That would just make Armor into an extra set of rules for doing the same thing we already have rules for, not unique enough to justify their existence.

Then just have armor increase a minifig's structure level?

stubby wrote:Medieval foot soldiers probably felt the same way about armored knights that you do, but I bet the kings still thought they were pretty cool.

Yet the best way to kill a knight was to knock him off of his horse and beat him with a club.

Zupponn wrote:Then just have armor increase a minifig's structure level?

You can already just increase a minifig's structure level up to 1d10 armor. So that makes buying armor that reduces your movement by 50% and removes all halfspeed movements feel kind of stupid. Besides it doesn't give that "impenetrable by simple infantry weapons" feel armored unit's should have.

Falk wrote:This. While adding stucture levels is all good and well when you're playing by yourself, some opponents just get bored if there's too much rolling and not enough playing.

Less rolling is good; this is why I like armor. Tactical decision making is good; this is why I like armor. Seeing a shove actually be useful as a close combat action (at least here we play that a minifig shoved while in armor is knocked over); this is why I like armor.

In fact, much of the time we just use static numbers for almost all armor values. Only having to roll for skill and damage makes for quick turns.